Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shersby

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shersby

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Surname disambig with only one person with a WP article. Attempt to redirect was contested by creator with WP:OSE, so I’m going here. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many surname articles with few people. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2020

@MoonlightTulsi: We don't keep those with only one. ミラ P 00:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: I've literally seen pages with only one. I get your point though. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2020

I have added a name that appears in another article. BD2412 T 00:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is (now) no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Shersby and, if desired, add a redirect hatnote to the sheriff. Pretty standard application of WP:ONEOTHER. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was initially created with a single entry (WP:TROUT for the creator: such an article was worse than useless as it gets in the way of search results for other people with the name). However, with the recent addition, if you squint a bit it will sort of almost kind of pass WP:APONOTE, but the thing that pushes it over the line for me is the "See also" entry for an article with a very similar name that would otherwise be inaccessible via the search results. I don't think resolving the ambiguity with hatnotes is a good idea, at the very least because it's premised on Shersby redirecting to Michael Shersby and it doesn't look like he is commonly referred to using just his surname. – Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It could be a surname page, but the SA makes it perhaps a dab page, but in any case it is standard to provide access to people by their surname and where they share the surname, unless they are equivalent of Shakespeare, we make a surname or dab page - it doesn't really matter which. PamD 15:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input everyone. I'll withdraw this now. ミラP 16:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Undid withdrawal; Clarityfiend still supports the article's redirection. WP:SK#1 says: and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 21:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will strike my lvote, but~~ I feel strongly that MOS:DABMENTION is way too broad, and ~~I may start~~ I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#DABMENTION discussion. A failed candidate and one of a gazillion medal recipients just for that year's honors list really aren't worth mentioning. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my retraction. The discussion about rewording DABMENTION has reached a consensus, and simply being mentioned in an article (without any indication of notability) is no longer considered an automatic pass. So we're back to two entries and one clear primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.